alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.6






Exhibit 10.6




MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING



The parties hereto Ronald Sharp and Global Warming Technologies, LLC (GWT) have agreed
as follows:





	 	1	 	GWT is a                  limited liability company GWT shall acquire all assets of
TecTransfer, Inc. (TTI) a Nevada Corporation which is wholly owned by Ronald
Sharp, The assets include a certain United States Patent number .£     Li_£           Z-Sl • a proof of

concept prototype engine assembly and related parts, engineering drawings for the
said engine, all trade secrets involving the engine design, any patentable
aspects of the engine design or other products that may be developed from the
engine design process, the plastic demonstration model of the engine, animated
and live video of the engine, Power point presentations, and any and all other
corporate assets. These shall be made available to GWT fob Dexter, Michigan
immediately upon the transfer of the consideration for the sale.
	 
	 	2	 	Any future patents applied for by GWT or its owners and agents
resulting from or related to thy technology purchased will be in the name of or
assigned to GWT Any licenses or sales of the technology or its products will be
in the name of or assigned to GWT. The intent being that The equity share of
GWT transferred to Ronald Sharp will participate in aJ) aspects of the
businesses GWT is now involved in or becomes involved in the future
	 
	 	3	 	In exchange for the said purchase, GWT shall pay the sum of
$75,000 US in cash (or by wire transfer) to Ronald Sharp and transfer to him or
his order an equity interest in GWT amounting to two and one-half percent of
the ownership of the LLC- This share shall proportionally participate in alt
profits of GWT and have the same right*; as alt other member interests
including the right to be kept advised as the activities and financial
transactions of GWT
	 
	 	4	 	Ronald Sharp shall not be responsible for any costs other than as
specifically set out herein Any transfer fees or tiling fees required by any
government agency shall be the responsibility of GWT Ronald Sharp will cooperate
in executing any documents needed to effectuate the transfer of the patent and
will gather together on pallets all the materials for GWT for their pickup. If
the transfer of technology is to a foreign entity GWT




 









 











PAGE 02





	 	 	 	assumes all responsibility for securing any needed approvals from the US
Department of Commerce.
	 
	 	5	 	Ronald Sharp will provide documentation as to the ownership by TTI
of the patent and will sign an affidavit that there are no outstanding liens,
debts, lawsuits, employee benefits, known or threatened causes of action, or
existing or past contracts relating to TTI.





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	TecTransfer, Inc

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Ronald Sharp
 	 
	 	 	Ronald Sharp, President 	 



					
	 
	Dated D7J0.J007 	Global Warming Technologies, LLC

 	 
	 	/s/ Vladimir Vasi
 	 
	 	Name Vladimir Vasi 	 
	 	Title   CEO
Employment Agreement with James Young





Exhibit 10.4

 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

Agreement made between The GNS Group, Inc., located at 4017 Colby Avenue, Everett, WA, herein referred to as “Company”.

And

James Young, herein referred to as “Employee”.

Company hereby employs employee to perform such duties at such times and in such manner as the company may from time to time direct.

Employee agrees that he will perform those duties assigned to him to the best of his ability, to maintain a current and complete account of his work and expenses, to remit promptly to the company any monies paid to him or coming into his possession which belong to the company.

In consideration of the foregoing, company agrees to pay to employee the amount of $1,000 per month plus reasonable travel expenses incurred for the purpose of conducting company business.

This contract shall become effective on March 1, 2007 and remain in effect until it is terminated by either party. Either party may terminate this agreement by providing the other party with 30 days written notice of his or their intention. Should this agreement be terminated by either party, employee agrees that the payment in full to the date of termination shall fully satisfy all claims against the company under this agreement.


	Agreed:  	Agreed:  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	ANTOINE JARJOUR  	JAMES YOUNG  
	By: President  	Employee  
	The GNS Group, Inc.
**AMENDMENTTO THE BANKBOSTON CORPORATIONAND ITS SUBSIDIARIES DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN**

           The BankBoston Corporation and Its Subsidiaries Deferred Compensation Plan is hereby amended, as follows:

          1. The last sentence of Section 7(a) is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

          Except as otherwise limited by this Section, a Participant shall have the right to elect the timing and form of the distribution of his or her Deferral Accounts, or to change any prior election, on a form approved by the Committee. An election under this Section is not valid or effective unless filed with the Committee at least one year prior to the Participant’s last day of active employment. A Participant who does not have a valid, timely election in effect on the last day of active employment shall have his or her Deferral Accounts paid in five annual installments following termination of employment.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by a duly authorized officer of FleetBoston Financial Corporation on this 24th day of December, 2001.

|   | FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                                                                  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
|   |
|   | By:    /s/ WILLIAM C. MUTTERPERL                     |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                         | William C. MutterperlExecutive Vice President,General Counsel and Secretary |
Registrant's Specimen Certificate for ordinary shares



 Exhibit 4.2 
  

							
	 Name of Company:
 China Mass Media International Advertising Corp.
  
	 	 CHINA MASS MEDIA INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISING CORP.
 (Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands)

	 Number:
 [Certificate no.]
  
 Shares:
 -[no. of shares]-
  
 Issued to:
 [Transferee]
  
 Dated
 [            ]
  
 Transferred from:
 [Transferor]
	 		  		  	
	 	 Number
 [Certificate no.]
	  		  	 Shares
 -[no. of shares]-

	 		  	 US$xxxx Share Capital divided into
 xxxx shares of a par value of US$0.001 each
	  	
	 	  
 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT
                                         
   
[Transferee]                                       
      is the registered holder of
                                         
   [no. of
shares]                                       
      Shares in the above-named Company subject to the memorandum and articles of association thereof.
  
 EXECUTED for and on behalf of the Company on
                             2008.
  
 DIRECTOR
                                        
    

		 	  
 TRANSFER
  
 I
                                         
                                         
           (the Transferor) for the value received
  
 DO HEREBY transfer to
                                         
                                         
   (the Transferee) the
  
                                         
                                         
                    shares standing in my name in the
  
 undertaking called CHINA MASS MEDIA INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISING CORP.
  
 To hold the same unto the Transferee
  
 Dated
  
 Signed by the Transferor
  
 in the presence of:



							
				
		 	 	  		  	 
		 	Witness	  		  	Transferor
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAETON BANGART,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. BONAVENTURE OF EAST WENATCHEE LLC, Defendant

- Appellant. No. 23

- 35528
D.C. No. 2:23

- cv - 00162

- TOR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 6, 2024 Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER, BEA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Defendant

- Appellant Bonaventure of East Wenatchee LLC appeals the
district court’s order below , which denied Bonaventure’s motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) of Plaintiff

- Appellee Paeton Bangart’s Washington state law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy

. The parties are familiar with the facts, which we recount here only where

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

AUG 19 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALSnecessary. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B), and we review de

novo the district court's decision to deny Bonaventure’s motion to compel arbitration. Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc. , 755 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). We

reverse and remand with instructions to grant Bonaventure’s motion

. 1. The district court erred when it considered in the first instance whether the arbitration agreement between Bonaventure and Bangart was enforceable as to Bangart’s wrongful discharge claim. It is true that , n ormally , “question[s] of arbitrability”

— such as whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable as to a “particular type of controversy”

— are reserved “for judicial determination

. ” Martin v. Yasuda , 829 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted). But the parties may delegate such threshold issues to the arbitrator so long as there is “an express agreement to do so

. ” Momot v. Mastro , 652 F.3d 982, 98 8 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Rent

- A

- Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson , 561 U.S. 63, 79

– 80 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting) )

. Such is the case here. The arbitration agreement between Bangart and Bonaventure stated that “ any legal dispute . . . concerning the scope, validity, enforceability or breach of this Agreement, shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration[,] . . . not by [a] court.” Given this “expansive” language, we conclude that Bangart and Bonaventure “clear ly and unmistakably ” delegat ed to the arbitrator the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was enforceable as to Bangart’s wrongful discharge claim

. Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc. , 848 F.3d 1201,120 9 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Momot , 652 F.3d at 988)

. It was therefore error for the

district court to decide that question instead.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6473

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLAUDE ST. JUSTE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-4-BR, CA-97-137-5-BR)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude St. Juste, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. St. Juste, Nos. CR-95-4-BR; CA-97-137-5-BR

(E.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
No. 49612.

#### Protest 44892-K of Wing Chong Lung Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in Oy Wo Tong (5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY HAMILTON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0036 FCD DAD P

vs.

MATTHEW C. KRAMER, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s July 13, 2005, request for leave to file a supplemental answer is

granted;

2. Petitioner may file and serve a reply within thirty days after service of this

order;

3. The Clerk shall file the fourteen-page supplemental answer submitted as

Attachment 1 to respondent’s July 13, 2005 request, excluding the attachment cover page; and

4. Matthew C. Kramer is substituted for D. Butler as respondent.

DATED: July 18, 2005.

DAD:13

hami0036.suppans

Case 2:04-cv-00036-ALA Document 8 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 1
**GENERAL FUND RECEIPT (GFR) ACCOUNT GUIDE**

**Effective Fiscal 2020**

**Scenario 6 Non-Custodial Statement Collections: Collection of Downward Re-estimate of Subsidy Expense**

The goal of this section is to record in a loan program the movement of excess subsidy from the financing fund to a General Fund Receipt Account.  The Credit Reform transactions illustrated in this scenario are limited.  For detailed Credit Reform transactions, refer to the Credit Reform Case Studies at******https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/ussgl/resources-creditreform.html****.**

Downward Re-estimate of Subsidy

If more subsidy money was collected than is necessary to fund future net cash outflows, the financing fund must relinquish the excess subsidy amount.  The financing fund must transfer the excess subsidy amount, with interest, to a designated GFR account.

**Year 1 – Quarter 1**

**Year 1 Pre-Closing Trial Balance**

**Financial Statements**

**Year 1 4th Quarter Yearend Reporting**

**Year 1 – Pre-closing Trial Balance**

**Year 1 – Pre-Closing Adjusting Entry**

**Year 1 – Pre-Closing Adjusted Trial Balance**

**Financial Statements**

**Reclassified Statements**

**Closing Entries**

**Year 1 Post-Closing Trial Balance**

**Year 2 Yearend**

****

**Year 2 Preclosing Trial Balance**

**Year 2 Preclosing Adjusting Entry**

**Year 2 Preclosing Adjusted Trial Balance**

**Financial Statements:**

**Reclassified Statements:**

**Closing Entries**

**Year 2 Post-Closing Trial Balance**

  Page **124** of **213                                                                IRC Handout April 23, 2020**
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1038**
**KA 13-00818**

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JUSTIN JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANE I. YOON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), rendered August 14, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his request for a probable cause hearing to determine the lawfulness of his arrest and the admissibility of evidence obtained by the police as a result thereof. We agree. As the People correctly concede, the court erred in determining that defendant was not entitled to a hearing because his motion papers did not include an affidavit from defendant ( see CPL 710.60 [1]; People v Mendoza , 82 NY2d 415, 421; People v Battle , 109 AD3d 1155, 1156, lv denied 22 NY3d 1038). The court also erred in determining that the factual assertions contained in defendant’s moving papers were insufficient to warrant a hearing.

In determining whether a hearing is required pursuant to CPL 710.60, “the sufficiency of defendant’s factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant’s access to information” ( Mendoza , 82 NY2d at 426). Here, considering defendant’s limited access to information regarding the basis for the actions of the arresting officers, he “could do little more than dispute the circumstances surrounding his arrest . . . [D]efendant’s lack of access to information precluded more specific factual allegations and created factual disputes, the resolution of which required a hearing” ( People v Bryant , 8 NY3d 530, 534). Thus, “[w]e**-2- 1038**
**KA 13-00818**

conclude that, under the circumstances, defense counsel’s affirmation was sufficient to raise a factual issue necessitating a hearing” ( People v Fagan , 203 AD2d 933, 933). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to conduct a suppression hearing.

Entered: October 9, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Before the Second Division,

October 24, 1946

No. 51375.

#### Protests 7261-K, etc., of Fred Haslam & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA SALTER,

NO. CIV. S-04-29 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI; and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN’S 

AFFAIRS,

Defendants.

 /

A hearing on this case was scheduled for May 23, 2005, at

10:00 a.m., on the Law and Motion Calendar of this court pursuant

to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Local Rule 78-230(c)

for the Eastern District of California specifies that an opposition

or statement of non-opposition to the granting of the motion shall

be in writing and shall be served and filed not less than fourteen

(14) days prior to the hearing. Plaintiff has failed to file an

opposition or statement of non-opposition. 

////

Case 2:04-cv-00029-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Counsel for plaintiff, is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in

writing not later than ten (10) days from the effective date of

this order why sanctions should not issue in the above-captioned

case in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150) as required

by Local Rule 11-110 for failure to file a timely opposition in

accordance with Local Rule 78-230, unless that party timely files

a written Statement of No Opposition. Hearing shall be held on the

Order to Show Cause at the time of hearing on this motion. 

2. The hearing on the motion for summary judgment presently

before the court is CONTINUED to June 13, 2005, where it will be

called on the court’s regularly scheduled Law and Motion Calendar,

beginning at 10:00 a.m. 

3. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to file and serve the

opposition no later than May 30, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 12, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00029-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Walter Murphy , Appellant

No. 06

- 22

- 00116

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 19F1148

- 005 ). Memorandum Opinio n delivered by Chief Justice Morriss

, Justice Stevens and Justice van Cleef participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note th at the appellant, Walter Murphy , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 1 0, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

No Name Description Rule Attribute Combination

46 Restriction for Non-Federal Exceptions

Federal Non-Federal Code domain value E (Non-Federal exceptions) is restricted. Exceptions are pending OMB OGC legal review. Fail

FEDERAL 

NONFEDERAL 

INDICATOR 

46E Restriction for Non-Federal Exceptions

Federal Non-Federal Code domain value E (Non-Federal exceptions) is restricted. Exceptions are pending OMB OGC legal review. Fund Family 

70E

Limited Use of USSGL 415100 with Authority Type Code "P"

The use of USSGL 415100 with Authority Type Code "P" is limited to specific Treasury Account Symbols. 

BEA Category 

Indicator

CONCATENATED 

TAS 

Pass M 015 X5608000

76 USSGLs Limited to IMF

Some USSGL accounts are restricted to IMF TAS only. Fail

USSGL ACCOUNT 

NUMBER 

 =439190 

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Validations - Detail

Bulletin No. 2023-11 DRAFT VII VDR - 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78804-78805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25296]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the date, time and 
agenda for a meeting of the National Small Business Development Center 
Advisory Board. The meeting will be open to the public; however, 
advance notice of attendance is required.

DATES: Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: Meeting will be held via Microsoft Teams.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Karton, Office of Small 
Business Development Centers, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 
Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#461427252e232a682823312b27286b2d27343229280635242768212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="540635373c31387a3a312339353a793f3526203b3a142736357a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>; 
202-619-1816.
    If anyone wishes to be a listening participant or would like to 
request accommodations, please contact Rachel Karton at the information 
above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section l0(a) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the SBA announces the 
meetings of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides 
advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator 
for Small Business Development Centers.

Purpose

    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following pertaining 
to the SBDC Program:

<bullet> Annual Plan
<bullet> Outreach and Engagement with SBDC State Directors

    Additionally, SBA will be seeking three volunteers from the 
Advisory Board to participate as judges for the National Small Business 
Week Small

[[Page 78805]]

Business Development Centers Excellence and Innovation Award.

Andrienne Johnson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-25296 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>